For sometime, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and the Senate Majority PAC has attempted to portray Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) as a vicious doctor that cuts spending for veterans healthcare and disregards the poor in favor of millionaires. 

However, FactCheck.org just released their analysis on an attack ad by the Senate Majority PAC which claims that Cassidy “voted for a plan that would cut veterans benefits.” Their response and decision on the claim: 100% UNTRUE.

The attack ad on Cassidy refers to a “February 2012 vote related to a Republican-sponsored bill that would have changed the budget process in a way that may or may not have resulted in budget cuts. Under the bill, baseline budget projections would not be adjusted for inflation. But Congress would still need to decide how much to spend above or below the baseline. The Congressional Budget Office said in an analysis of the bill: ‘Any impact on the budget would depend on the extent of future legislative actions.'” The bill was titled ‘The Baseline Reform Act of 2012.’

But, Cassidy’s vote was actually on a Democratic motion to the Baseline Reform Act of 2012, which would have altered how “CBO determines baseline projections used to measure the impact of changes in law. Under current law, baseline budget projections are based on the current year appropriations, but adjusted for inflation. The GOP proposal would have required that baseline projections no longer be adjusted for inflation.”

The CBO, though, said the bill would not have affected direct spending or revenues. 

The vote on the Democratic motion — the one cited in the ad — would have sent the bill back to committee with instructions to maintain inflation-adjusted funding levels for “all discretionary spending that provide benefits for veterans.”

Cassidy voted against the motion to recommit, which failed, and then he voted next for passage of the bill, which passed 235-177. Both votes were largely along party lines. The bill died in the Senate.

FactCheck.org said it was possible that the bill would not have cut veterans benefits, therefore the ad holds no truth. 

This is not the first time FactCheck.org has slayed attack ads on Cassidy. Back in June, an ad which claimed Cassidy’s healthcare proposal, dubbed ‘Cassidycare’, would have been just like Obamacare was proven false.

Cassidy’s proposal didn’t include subsidies for low-income people, wouldn’t have required individuals to obtain coverage or have required employers to provide coverage, didn’t set any requirements for what health insurance must cover, and didn’t include any new taxes or fees. And it didn’t include any new regulations on doctors, hospitals or patients, contrary to the ad’s claim that it amounted to “government-run health care.” The ACA, of course, isn’t “government-run health care” either, despite the many times Republicans have tried to brand it as such.

Instead, Cassidy’s proposed exchange would have been a “clearinghouse” for negotiations among parties in the insurance market. The actual language of the rather brief, 22-page billdescribed the “primary responsibility” of the new exchange as being “to promote and assist such an individual, person, business, state or local government, association and other juridical entity seeking health insurance coverage and any insurer to negotiate and transact a suitable contract or agreement between the parties to provide such coverage.”

And then there was this fact check from the Washington Post: